Customer brand engagement during

service lockdown
Linda D. Hollebeek
Department of Marketing, Sales and Communication, Montpellier Business School, Montpellier, France and
Department of Marketing, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia
Dale L.G. Smith
The Goodwood Park Healthcare Group Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand
Edward Kasabov
Department of Marketing, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia
Wafa Hammedi
University of Namur, Namur, Belgium
Alexander Warlow
Noridol Consulting, Cardiff, UK, and
Moira K. Clark
Henley Business School, University of Reading, Reading, UK

Abstract
Purpose – While the customer brand engagement (CBE) research has advanced important insight, most studies to date explore CBE under regular,
free-market conditions, yielding an important knowledge gap regarding its manifestation under less regular conditions, including disaster/
pandemics. This study, therefore, aims to explore CBE with essential/non-essential service during COVID-19-prompted citizen lockdown.
Design/methodology/approach – Based on a review, the authors develop a framework of lockdown-based CBE with essential/non-essential
service interactions, which are conceptualized by their respective capacity to meet differing needs in Maslow’s hierarchy. The authors view
lockdown-based essential/non-essential service interactions to differentially impact CBE, as summarized in a set of propositions.
Findings – The framework depicts lockdown-based essential/non-essential service interactions and their respective impact on CBE. The authors propose
two essential service modes (i.e. socially distant/platform-mediated interactions) and two non-essential service modes (i.e. service closure/platform-
mediated interactions), which the authors hypothesize to differently affect CBE. Moreover, the authors view the associations between our lockdown-based
service modes and CBE to be moderated by customers’ regulatory focus (i.e. promotion/prevention), as formalized in the propositions.
Research limitations/implications – Given the authors’ focus on lockdown-based CBE, this paper adds unique insight to the literature. It also
raises ample opportunities for further study, as outlined.
Practical implications – This study yields important managerial implications, including the suggested adoption of differing tactics/strategies to
leverage promotion/prevention-focused customers’ brand engagement during lockdown.
Originality/value – By exploring the effects of lockdown-based essential/non-essential service modes on promotion/prevention-focused customers’
brand engagement, this paper adds novel insight.
Keywords Customer brand engagement, Lockdown, (Non-)essential service, COVID-19, Regulatory focus theory, Social distancing,
Platform-mediated service, Maslow’s needs hierarchy
Paper type Conceptual paper

1. Introduction (Kumar et al., 2019, p. 141), has received widespread attention

(Furrer et al., 2020). Given its interactive core, CBE has prime
Customer brand engagement (CBE), which exposes a client’s applicability in the service context that is characterized by high
“investment of operant resources (i.e. cognitive, emotional, interactivity, including among customers, service staff and
behavioural, and/or social knowledge/skills) and operand fellow customers (Oertzen et al., 2020; Clark et al., 2020).
resources (e.g. equipment) in [their] brand interactions” Existing CBE literature has developed important acumen,
including by defining and operationalizing the concept, and
outlining its contribution to key firm performance indicators,
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald
including sales (Brodie et al., 2011; Letheren et al., 2019).
Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/0887-6045.htm

Received 30 May 2020

Journal of Services Marketing Revised 3 August 2020
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 0887-6045] 6 September 2020
[DOI 10.1108/JSM-05-2020-0199] Accepted 7 September 2020
 Customer brand engagement Journal of Services Marketing
Linda D. Hollebeek et al.

However, most studies to date address CBE under regular, free- locked-down customers to engage differently with essential
market conditions characterized by relatively plentiful resources/ and non-essential service brands (vs under regular market
offerings and free choice (Hollebeek et al., 2019; Ward et al., conditions), as explored further in this paper.
2019). Consequently, understanding of CBE under less regular Based on this rationale, we develop a framework that
or predictable conditions remains limited. Important exceptions maps CBE with essential/non-essential service brands
to this observation include Beckers et al.’s (2018) and Yuan during lockdown. Here, essential service transpires via
et al.’s (2020) exploration of firm advertising’s effect on CBE in socially distant interactions (e.g. at supermarkets) and/or
the context of product-harm crises and Karpen and Conduit’s platform-mediated interactions, including by phone, email,
(2020) discussion of COVID-19-based CBE. However, though websites, social media, service robots, etc. (e.g. online
the latter authors adopt economic rationalism, institutionalism grocery ordering; Lee et al., 2020). Non-essential service is
and existential humanism to explore CBE during COVID-19, either temporarily closed during lockdown or available (to
they do not specify how customers are expected to engage with some degree) via platform-mediated service interactions. In
their service brands during pandemic-instigated lockdown, as this paper, we theorize about the impact of these lockdown-
undertaken in this paper. based service modes on CBE.
Based on this gap, we explore CBE during citizen lockdown, as We further propose that CBE with essential/non-essential
implemented in many countries globally during the COVID-19 service brands is moderated by customers’ regulatory (i.e.
pandemic (Heymann and Shindo, 2020), and highlight its promotion/prevention) focus (Higgins, 1997), as discussed in
unique lockdown-based dynamics. The paper makes the Section 2.2. Though prior studies have linked regulatory focus
following contributions. First, as stated, we add to CBE-based and CBE (Mosteller and Poddar, 2017), they are yet to apply
insight by exploring service provision during choice-constraining, this interface to the unique, volitional CBE-constrained
obligatory citizen lockdown imposed by COVID-19, which may conditions imposed by pandemic-prompted lockdown, as
return in future emergency- or crisis-prompted lockdown. explored in this paper.
Lockdown offers an interesting case for further exploration, as it The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 reviews relevant
relegates CBE’s typically more volitional nature under regular CBE/regulatory focus theory literature. In Section 3.1, we
market conditions. Our analyses, therefore, extend Hollebeek conceptualize essential/non-essential service, as derived from
et al.’s (2018) notion of boundedly volitional CBE, which Maslow’s needs hierarchy and propose four lockdown-based
recognizes that while CBE has an important voluntary (i.e. free essential/non-essential service modes. We then develop a
choice-based) facet (e.g. customers choosing their preferred framework (Figure 1) that maps the impact of these service
brand), it may also contain an involuntary aspect (e.g. restricted modes on CBE, with the respective associations being moderated
face-to-face service interactions during lockdown). Given its by customers’ regulatory focus. In Section 3.2, we summarize the
likely adjusting effect on the ratio of voluntary-to-non-voluntary framework’s associations in a set of propositions, followed by an
CBE (vs under regular market conditions), lockdown offers a outline of implications that arise from this research in Section 4.
thought-provoking scenario for further exploration, as therefore
addressed in this paper. Figure 1 Conceptual framework
Second, given government-enforced, COVID-19-based
lockdown requirements on citizens in many countries, we
develop a model of CBE with essential/non-essential service
interactions during lockdown. Lockdown refers to people being
instructed to “self-isolate” at home as much as possible by only
going out to shop for essential supplies, practising social
distancing by keeping an at least 1.5-2 m distance from others
and limiting their face-to-face interactions (and thus,
engagement) to those in their bubble (i.e. lockdown cohabitants;
WHO, 2020). In lockdown, non-essential (e.g. tourism)
services are closed, and social gatherings are forbidden to limit
the pandemic’s spread.
As discussed in Section 3.1, government-designated
essential service satisfies consumers’ basic physiological (e.g.
sustenance) or safety needs (e.g. housing; Maslow, 1943).
By contrast, non-essential service either gratifies physiological
or safety needs in beyond-basic ways (e.g. dining out) or
fulfils Maslow’s higher-order needs of love/belonging,
esteem or self-actualization. During lockdown, only
essential service remains open in many countries, including
parts of China, the USA, Italy, Spain, France and Germany,
but typically with social distancing restrictions (Sullivan
et al., 2020), thus impacting interactive CBE. Moreover,
during lockdown, non-essential service is required to either
temporarily close, or be delivered via platform-mediated
interactions (Ramaswamy and Ozcan, 2016). We expect
 Customer brand engagement Journal of Services Marketing
Linda D. Hollebeek et al.

2. Literature review The regulatory focus theory proffers two self-regulatory

mechanisms: promotion and prevention. Promotion-focused
2.1 Customer brand engagement
individuals emphasize the achievement of gains (e.g. hopes,
As stated, CBE has been defined as a customer’s resource
accomplishments; Higgins, 1997). In marketing, customers’
investment in his/her brand interactions (Kumar et al., 2019;
promotion focus manifests through eager or (pro)active
Hollebeek et al., 2019; Hollebeek and Chen, 2014), highlighting
strategies to achieve their goal (e.g. by engaging in brand-
its interactive nature that differentiates it from related concepts,
related citizenship behaviours to optimize their service
including involvement or commitment (Brodie et al., 2011,
experience; Solem and Pedersen, 2016). Promotion-focused
2013). Goffman (1969) views interaction as an interpersonal
customers, therefore, commit resources (i.e. engage) to
communication, thus incorporating both face-to-face and remote
optimize their service experience (Kumar et al., 2019;
(e.g. platform-mediated) interactions within its scope.
Hollebeek, 2013), including through lockdown.
Our review highlights the following CBE hallmarks. First,
However, prevention-focused individuals emphasize the pursuit
CBE’s resource investments vary in their volitionality level
of security or responsibilities to avoid loss (Higgins, 1997).
(Hollebeek et al., 2018), as outlined. While some resource
Prevention-focused consumers tend to accept and follow the
investments are made voluntarily, others can be required or
rules by adopting vigilant strategies (e.g. by adhering to lockdown
controlled by others. For example, customers selecting their
instructions) to achieve their goal (e.g. remaining virus-free).
favourite brand (i.e. voluntary investment) versus clients being
That is, unlike promotion-focused customers, who seek to boost
required to pay for on-service site parking (i.e. less voluntary
hedonic, functional or social gains from their brand interactions,
investment). Under regular, free-market conditions, CBE’s
prevention-focused customers invest to avert or minimize pain or
volitionality level can be constrained by such factors as
loss in their lockdown-based service interactions (Higgins and
institutions (e.g. rules/control) or lacking (e.g. financial)
Scholer, 2009). Based on these foundations, we next develop a
resources (Vargo and Lusch, 2016; Kasabov and Warlow,
framework of promotion/prevention-focused customers’ brand
2010; Kasabov and Da Cunha, 2014). However, during
engagement with essential/non-essential service brands through
lockdown, CBE’s voluntariness is further restrained by service
lockdown.
system (i.e. government)-imposed limitations, including
temporary service closure and forbidden social interactions and
travel (Baker, 2020), thus further impacting CBE. 3. Conceptual framework
Second, CBE has been viewed as a multidimensional Our framework maps CBE with essential/non-essential service
concept (Vivek et al., 2014; Juric et al., 2016), which comprises during COVID-19-prompted lockdown (Figure 1). Section 3.1
customers’ cognitive, emotional and behavioural resource conceptualizes essential/non-essential service, as linked to
investments in their interactions (Clark et al., 2020; Hollebeek, Maslow’s (1954) needs hierarchy, as outlined. Relatedly, we
2011a, 2011b). For example, customers might invest their develop four lockdown-based essential/non-essential service
reading/scrolling skills to get the latest news on their modes, as discussed in Sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, respectively.
smartphone. While some researchers single out behavioural In Section 3.2, we explore the impact of these service modes on
engagement (Do et al., 2020; Groeger et al., 2016), others CBE, as moderated by the customer’s regulatory focus, which
extend the multi-dimensional CBE model by adding a social we summarize in a set of Propositions.
dimension that highlights customers’ communal, collective or
shared resource investments (e.g. user bonding in online 3.1 Essential vs non-essential service
communities; Khan et al., 2020; Brodie et al., 2013). Though We conceptualize essential and non-essential service by examining
we agree with the widely cited, three-dimensional view of CBE which of Maslow’s (1954) needs a service meets (Figure 1). The
(Harrigan et al., 2018; Hollebeek et al., 2014), we primarily inverted or upside-down depiction of Maslow’s hierarchy
focus on behavioural CBE, given its focus on directly observable highlights the particular importance of essential (vs non-
CBE expressions (Verleye et al., 2014). We next review CBE’s essential) service, which continues to be provided during
interface with regulatory focus theory. lockdown. As outlined, essential service offers basic fulfilment of
Maslow’s (1943) physiological or safety needs. Physiological
2.2 The customer brand engagement/regulatory focus needs reflect an individual’s physical survival requirements,
theory interface including basic nourishment (e.g. supermarket supplies),
CBE has been examined from several theoretical perspectives, hydration, sleep and clothing. These universal human needs
including S-D logic, social exchange theory and regulatory must be met before higher-order needs can be satisfied. When
focus theory, to name a few (Brodie et al., 2011; Solem and these are met, individuals’ safety needs surface, which reveal the
Pedersen, 2016; Eberhardt et al., 2020). Higgins’s (1997) need to be safe from harm (e.g. need for a safe, secure
regulatory focus theory explores the association between environment; Maslow, 1954).
individuals’ values/beliefs-based motivation and their goal Non-essential service either meets Maslow’s physiological or
fulfilment processes, which service customers largely seek safety needs in beyond-basic ways (e.g. dining out) or fulfils
through value-laden brand/firm interactions, thus affecting the higher-order needs for love/belonging, esteem or self-
CBE (Higgins and Scholer, 2009). Based on the regulatory actualization, as outlined. Love/belonging needs reflect a
focus theory, customers are assumed to embrace pleasure, but customer’s desire for friendship, intimacy or family, as
avoid pain when engaging with their brands, and their chosen catered for by – for instance – dating services or online
mechanism to achieve this goal reveals their regulatory focus community memberships. Esteem needs reflect a customer’s
(Eberhardt et al., 2020). ego or status needs, including by desiring others’ acceptance
 Customer brand engagement Journal of Services Marketing
Linda D. Hollebeek et al.

or respect (e.g. catered for by beauty services; Maslow, firm-instigated, locked-down consumers may also initiate
1943). Finally, self-actualization needs reflect a customer’s platform-mediated, non-essential service interaction substitutes
desire to realize his/her full potential, including by pursuing (e.g. by virtually exercising with their gym buddies). We next
one’s personal goals or nurturing one’s talents (e.g. catered explore the effects of our lockdown-based essential/non-essential
for by self-development courses; Maslow, 1954). While many service modes on CBE.
non-essential services that require face-to-face interactions
(e.g. hairdressing/massage therapy) remain temporarily 3.2 Impact of lockdown-based service modes on customer
closed, other services that can be conducted via technology- brand engagement
mediated platforms may continue online through lockdown Below, we infer the impact of our lockdown-instigated essential
(e.g. virtual counselling sessions; Békés and Aafjes-Van
and non-essential service modes on CBE (see Sections 3.2.1-3.2.2,
Doorn, 2020), thus differentially affecting CBE. We next
respectively), which we posit to be moderated by customers’
introduce four key lockdown-based essential/non-essential
regulatory focus.
service modes, followed by a discussion of their respective
effects on CBE. 3.2.1 Essential service
3.1.1 Essential service As discussed, lockdown-based essential service transpires via
We propose two lockdown-based essential service modes. First, socially distant or platform-mediated interactions (also see
essential service may be offered through government-imposed Figure 1). Their respective effects on promotion/prevention-
socially distant interactions, where providers’ brick-and-mortar focused individuals’ CBE are discussed further below.
stores remain open for face-to-face, but restricted interactions, Impact of socially distant service interactions on promotion/
in which (frontline) staff and customers must practise social prevention-focused CBE. We first address the effect of
distancing (Wilder-Smith and Freedman, 2020). Here, only few lockdown-imposed socially distant, essential service
customers are permitted in store at a time, customers are interactions on promotion/prevention-focused customers’
required to limit their store visits, both in terms of visit brand engagement (see Figure 1: top left). As outlined in
frequency and time spent in store and service staff/customers Section 3.1.1, socially distant service interactions require
are typically required to keep a physical distance from one customers’ physical distance from each other and service
another and wear protective equipment (e.g. gloves, face employees while on-site. Section 2.2 also reported that
mask). The provider’s usual service portfolio may also be promotion-focused customers adopt eager, proactive
temporarily narrowed during lockdown, and more stringent strategies to optimize their service interactions (Solem and
hygiene procedures tend to be enforced (Lin et al., 2020). Pedersen, 2016).
Second, essential service can be implemented through While promotion-focused customers actively want to invest
platform-mediated interactions, which deploy technological in their service interactions (see Hollebeek et al., 2020a),
touchpoints, including firm phone numbers, (e-commerce) lockdown-imposed social distancing limits these customer
websites, social media pages, mobile apps, service robots, etc., investments in their remaining face-to-face service interactions
to facilitate service interactions (Breidbach et al., 2014). For (e.g. grocery shopping). We, therefore, expect these keen
example, many locked-down customers are migrating their customers to seek fulfilment by engaging with essential service
grocery shopping to their retailer’s online platform (vs physical brands in alternate ways, including through platform-mediated
store visits; Marston et al., 2020). Unlike its socially distant
interactions (e.g. by registering on the brand’s website or
counterpart, lockdown-based platform-mediated service
joining online brand communities to optimize their brand
interactions remain relatively unrestricted (e.g. in terms of
experience during lockdown; Solem and Pedersen, 2016;
customers’ time allowance to complete their order). Overall,
Liberman et al., 2001). Therefore:
many essential service providers offer socially distant, on-site
and platform-mediated service interactions during lockdown. P1. To compensate for CBE-limiting socially distant service
3.1.2 Non-essential service interactions, locked-down, promotion-focused customers
Non-essential service also sees two lockdown modes. First, will engage in a broader range of platform-mediated
government-imposed service closure requires businesses to essential service interactions (vs under regular market
temporarily close their physical premises, where face-to-face conditions).
service interactions would ordinarily take place (e.g. travel
Prevention-focused customers, however, focus on avoiding loss
agencies, gyms). Closure is justified based on the service’s non-
essential nature (i.e. it does not satisfy consumers’ basic and vigilantly pursue security and responsibilities and follow
physiological or safety needs) and the risk of it contributing to rules (Higgins, 1997), including those relating to COVID-19-
the pandemic’s further dissemination if it remained open prompted social distancing. While these customers’ loss-
(Baker, 2020). avoidant stance typically implies their concern regarding a range
Second, like essential service, non-essential service can be of perceived risks under regular market conditions (e.g.
provided through platform-mediated interactions. For example, psychological/social risk; Jacoby and Kaplan, 1972; Hollebeek
global fitness franchise Les Mills offers its exercise classes online to et al., 2020b), in lockdown, their loss-avoidant position shifts to
locked-down consumers and via television in some countries primarily focus on minimizing basic physiological or safety risks
(Heard, 2020), thus continuing to engage existing, and possibly (e.g. remaining virus-free) versus risk associated with Maslow’s
attracting new, clients (Hammedi et al., 2015). However, while higher-order needs (cf. Markowitz et al., 2014). Therefore,
non-essential services’ platform-mediated interactions can be during lockdown:
 Customer brand engagement Journal of Services Marketing
Linda D. Hollebeek et al.

P2. Socially distant essential service interactions lead 3.2.2 Non-essential service
prevention-focused customers to primarily engage in Non-essential service is either temporarily closed or transpires
mitigating brand-related physiological or safety risk (vs through platform-mediated service interactions during
risk associated with their higher-order needs). lockdown (Figure 1). Their respective effects on promotion/
prevention-focused individuals’ CBE are outlined below.
Impact of platform-mediated service interactions on promotion/ Impact of temporary service closure on promotion/prevention-
prevention-focused CBE. Second, we address the effect of focused CBE. We next address the effect of lockdown-imposed,
platform-mediated essential service interactions on promotion/ temporary non-essential service closure on promotion/
prevention-focused customers’ brand engagement (see Figure 1: prevention-focused customers’ brand engagement (see Section
top centre). As discussed in Section 3.1.1, platform-mediated 3.1.2; Figure 1: bottom of triangle). As stated, non-essential
service interactions deploy technological platforms (e.g. websites, service either gratifies consumers’ physiological or safety needs
apps) to interact with customers (Ramaswamy and Ozcan, 2016; in beyond-basic ways, or fulfils their higher-order love/
Beck et al., 2020). Moreover, promotion-focused customers’ belonging, esteem or self-actualization needs (e.g. luxury hotel
eager strategies will see them explore different ways to interact stays).
with or experience their service brands (Higgins, 1997). Temporary non-essential service closure affects those
P1 stipulated that locked-down, promotion-focused customers businesses that national governments have ordered to cease
engage in more platform-mediated interactions with essential operating during lockdown to minimize the risk of the pandemic
service brands than usual. Given these customers’ active, spreading (Heymann and Shindo, 2020). Therefore, face-to-
resourceful stance (Solem and Pedersen, 2016; Liberman et al., face service interactions are unavailable during lockdown.
2001), their platform-mediated interactions are likely to extend Given promotion-focused customers’ eager stance (Micu and
beyond those with the brand/firm alone, to ones with other actors Chowdhury, 2010), they will likely seek brand-related fulfilment
(e.g. by exchanging brand-related ideas (e.g. recipes) with fellow in alternate ways, particularly for their preferred brands (P3),
customers; Clark et al., 2020; Alexander et al., 2018; Rosenbaum thus elongating their engaged timespan even through lockdown.
and Massiah, 2007). To fulfil these customers’ desire to We, however, infer that prevention-focused customers tend to be
optimally experience their service brands during lockdown: more accepting of temporary service closure during lockdown.
P3. Promotion-focused customers’ brand engagement in That is, they are more likely to be happy to wait to resume their
platform-mediated, essential service interactions sees a non-essential service interactions post-lockdown (Solem and
broader range of new or alternate brand-related uses and Pedersen, 2016), thus potentially yielding a period of CBE
applications (vs under regular market conditions). dormancy during lockdown (Brodie et al., 2013). Therefore,
during lockdown:
However, loss-avoidant, prevention-focused customers typically
use fewer brand-related, technology-mediated platforms than P5. Prevention (vs promotion)-focused customers’ engagement
their promotion-focused counterparts, as they are more likely to with a temporarily closed, desired non-essential service
limit their interactions to trusted platforms (Das, 2016). brand is more (vs less) likely to see a period of CBE
Consequently, we expect them to experience higher levels of dormancy.
technology-related discomfort or insecurity (Parasuraman, Impact of platform-mediated service interactions on promotion/
2000), particularly for new or unknown platforms. They are also prevention-focused CBE. Fourth, we address the effect of
more likely to delay adopting brand-related, technology- lockdown-imposed, platform-mediated interactions for non-
mediated platforms until they are mainstream, rendering them essential service on promotion/prevention-focused customers’
less likely to be technology innovators or early adopters (Rogers, brand engagement (see Section 3.1.2; Figure 1: bottom of
1962). triangle). As many non-essential (e.g. tourism, beauty) services
However, as outlined in P2, prevention-focused customers’ are experiential to customers or facilitate their self-expression
perceived risk of contracting the virus during lockdown is likely (Sprott et al., 2009), eager, promotion-focused customers, in
to outweigh their technological reservations, particularly for particular, will miss experiencing the full range of their non-
essential service, for which they are now much more reliant on essential service benefits during lockdown. Therefore, they are
technology-mediated platforms (vs under regular market likely to engage in alternate (e.g. platform-mediated) brand
conditions; KPMG, 2020). Therefore, during lockdown, these interactions as a substitute (Werth and Foerster, 2007). Thus, in
customers’ opportunity to delay the uptake of essential service- lockdown:
based, platform-mediated interactions (e.g. online grocery
ordering) is significantly reduced (vs under regular market P6. Promotion-focused customers’ engagement with their
conditions; Stam and Stanton, 2010). Consequently, we expect desired non-essential service brands through platform-
locked-down, prevention-focused customers’ greater reliance mediated interactions is higher (vs under regular market
on platform-mediated essential service interactions to help conditions).
overcome their platform-related technological discomfort and
insecurity (Parasuraman, 2000). Thus, during lockdown: Moreover, while platform-mediated essential service interactions
are rapidly becoming the new normal, non-essential service
P4. Prevention-focused customers’ brand engagement in transpiring through platform-mediated interactions remains
platform-mediated, essential service interactions increases more discretionary to customers. Given prevention-focused
more rapidly (vs under regular market conditions). customers’ more risk-averse stance (Solem and Pedersen, 2016)
 Customer brand engagement Journal of Services Marketing
Linda D. Hollebeek et al.

and slower technological uptake (Rogers, 1962), as discussed, we interactions where possible (Ramaswamy and Ozcan, 2016). By
posit that during lockdown: contrast, prevention-focused customers’ primary desire is to
remain virus-free (Higgins, 1997), to which platform-mediated
P7. Promotion (vs prevention)-focused customers’ engagement service interactions are also conducive, given their lack of face-to-
with their desired non-essential service brands through face contact. Therefore, to cater to promotion- and prevention-
platform-mediated interactions will be higher. focused customers during lockdown, managers are advised to
develop and maintain a range of service interaction platforms
In sum, P6–P7 propose that during lockdown, promotion-
(Vilnai-Yavetz and Levina, 2018), including ecommerce
focused customers’ engagement with non-essential service
websites, mobile apps, brand communities or virtual reality-
brands through platform-mediated interactions is not only
based touchpoints (CapGemini, 2020; Hollebeek et al., 2020;
higher than usual, but it also exceeds that of prevention-focused
Viswanathan et al., 2017), which are instrumental in engaging
customers. We next synthesize important implications that
these consumers.
arise from this research.
Second and relatedly, during lockdown, many promotion-
and prevention-focused customers have shifted to purchasing
4. Discussion, implications and limitations online (vs in-store; Roggeveen and Sethuraman, 2020),
4.1 Theoretical implications requiring them to learn new brand-related (e.g. app navigation,
Our framework maps the impact of our four lockdown- usage) skills. Post-lockdown, these customers may wish to
imposed essential/non-essential service modes on promotion/ continue using their new skills, which managers can leverage by
prevention-focused customers’ brand engagement. As such, it offering value-laden platform-mediated service interactions to
makes an important contribution to the CBE literature, which sustain these customers’ brand engagement long term,
has primarily addressed CBE under regular, free-market including post the pandemic (Porpiglia et al., 2020). For
conditions to date. example, now that COVID-19 has raised consumer awareness
To conceptualize essential/non-essential service, we draw on of the dangers inherent in face-to-face service interactions,
Maslow’s (1943, 1954) hierarchy of needs, thereby generating particularly prevention-focused customers are likely to remain
two lockdown-based essential service modes (i.e. socially more cautious regarding these, leading them to choose (more)
distant/platform-mediated interactions) and two non-essential platform-mediated (vs physical) service interactions in the
service modes (i.e. service closure/platform-mediated longer-term future. To sustain promotion- and prevention-
interactions), as shown in Figure 1. In the current COVID-19 focused customers’ brand engagement post the pandemic, we
landscape and beyond, our conceptualization of essential/non- recommend managers to first identify those customers that
essential service and their respective sub-types hold significant have started using new brand-related platforms during
value. That is, a sound understanding of essential (vs non- lockdown and who wish to continue using these post-lockdown
essential) service is important in handling and resolving the and continue targeting them with relevant brand-related
current pandemic (Ma et al., 2020). Moreover, future disasters content via these platforms.
or crises may see a renewed need to draw on our essential/non- Third, locked-down, promotion-focused customers are
essential service typology (Hambrick, 1984) and explore the expected to conceive of new or alternate brand-related uses,
effects of its respective components on CBE, corroborating its activities or applications (P3), which managers might like to
value both during and beyond COVID-19. track or document. For example, to optimize their brand
Second, based on the framework, we developed a set of interactions during lockdown, promotion-focused customers
propositions that outline the effects of our lockdown-prompted may establish new brand communities to facilitate brand-
service modes on promotion/prevention-focused customers’ related discussions with like-minded others (Hollebeek et al.,
brand engagement. Given COVID-19’s rapid, unanticipated 2017). Managerial tracking of and insight into such customer
surge, these propositions offer important, novel CBE-based initiatives may be used to inform new promotional campaigns,
insight in cases of national or global emergency, including formal market research or platform- or service development
catastrophes or pandemics, which has lagged behind to date. post-lockdown or post the pandemic.
By mapping promotion- and prevention-focused individuals’
CBE in essential/non-essential service brand interactions, this 4.3 Limitations and further research
study offers a springboard for further scrutiny of CBE under We conclude by identifying this study’s chief limitations, from
choice-constraining, lockdown-based market conditions. In which we identify avenues for further research. First, the purely
Section 4.3, we offer specific issues for further research in this conceptual nature of our analyses sparks a need for their future
vital area. empirical testing and validation. Further researchers may wish
to test our propositions, or identify important additional
4.2 Managerial implications moderating variables (e.g. culture, desire for control), that may
This research also raises important practical implications. First, affect or refine our findings (Kasabov and Warlow, 2010).
we inferred that not only promotion-focused (P1, P3, P6), but Moreover, our adoption of Maslow’s (1943) hierarchy of
also prevention-focused customers (P4) are likely to engage in a needs, which lacks proven cross-cultural applicability
broader range of platform-mediated service interactions during (Gambrel and Cianci, 2003), renders a need for further
lockdown (vs under regular market conditions). Specifically, consideration of culture’s potentially differing effects on global
promotion-focused customers seek to optimize their brand customer needs and CBE alike (Gupta et al., 2018; Hollebeek,
interactions (Solem and Pedersen, 2016), which through 2018). Therefore, further research may wish to validate our
lockdown, is best achieved by engaging in platform-mediated framework in different cultural contexts.
 Customer brand engagement Journal of Services Marketing
Linda D. Hollebeek et al.

Second, though we deployed customers’ regulatory focus as a Brodie, R., Hollebeek, L., Ilic, A. and Juric, B. (2011),
key moderator in the association of our lockdown-based service “Customer engagement: conceptual domain, fundamental
modes and CBE, an individual’s regulatory fit is not fixed per se propositions & implications for research in service marketing”,
and may also be prompted by particular stimuli. Thus, while Journal of Service Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 252-271.
most individuals are inclined towards either promotion or Brodie, R., Juric, B., Ilic, A. and Hollebeek, L. (2013),
prevention (Higgins et al., 2001), their regulatory focus may vary “Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: an
situationally, as recognized in the prospect theory (Tversky and exploratory analysis”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66
Kahneman, 1986), which merits further study. No. 1, pp. 105-114.
Third, while we focus on CBE as those (less) voluntary CapGemini (2020), “The consumer and COVID-19”,
customer resource investments in their brand interactions available at: www.capgemini.com/research/the-consumer-
(Kumar et al., 2019; Hollebeek et al., 2019), other authors view and-covid-19/ (accessed 26 April 2020).
CBE to extend beyond customer brand/firm interactions alone Clark, M., Lages, C. and Hollebeek, L. (2020), “Friend or foe?
(Vivek et al., 2012; Bowden, 2009). Therefore, future studies Customer engagement’s value-based effects on fellow
may wish to adopt a broader view of lockdown-based customers and the firm”, Journal of Business Research, In
engagement that extends beyond service brand interactions press, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.011.
(e.g. by incorporating customers’ brand-related cognitive Das, G. (2016), “Understanding the role of regulatory focus in
processing outside these interactions; Harrigan et al., 2018). e-tailing activities”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 30
Fourth, during the pandemic, many customers worldwide No. 2, pp. 212-222.
are stockpiling goods, leading to in-store stockouts. We offer Do, D., Rahman, K. and Robinson, L. (2020), “Determinants
the following questions for further research: To what extent do of negative customer engagement behaviors”, Journal of
promotion/prevention-focused customers engage in stockpiling Services Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 117-135.
at differing crisis-based national emergency levels? How are Eberhardt, W., Brüggen, E., Post, T. and Hoet, C. (2020),
supply chains best designed to cope with customer stockpiling “Online communication in a low involvement setting”,
under rising alert levels, particularly immediately prior to and Conditionally accepted, International Journal of Research in
during lockdown? To what extent, how, and why do locked- Marketing.
down customers substitute their preferred resources with Furrer, O., Kerguignas, J., Delcourt, C. and Gremler, D.
(2020), “Twenty-seven years of service research: a literature
others, and how does this affect their short- and long-term
review and research agenda”, Journal of Services Marketing,
CBE? How does customers’ fluctuating brand engagement
Vol. 34 No. 3, doi: 10.1108/JSM-02-2019-0078.
during disaster affect their wellbeing (Russell-Bennett et al.,
Gambrel, P. and Cianci, R. (2003), “Maslow’s hierarchy of
2019)?
needs: does it apply in a collectivist culture”, Journal of Applied
Management and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 143-161.
References Goffman, E. (1969), Strategic Interaction, University of Pennsylvania
Press.
Alexander, M., Jaakkola, E. and Hollebeek, L. (2018), Groeger, L., Moroko, L. and Hollebeek, L. (2016), “Capturing
“Zooming out: actor engagement beyond the dyadic”, value from non-paying consumers’ engagement behaviours:
Journal of Service Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 333-351. field evidence and development of a theoretical model”,
Baker, M. (2020), “Characterizing occupations that cannot Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 24 Nos 3/4, pp. 190-209.
work from home: a means to identify susceptible worker Gupta, S., Pansari, A. and Kumar, V. (2018), “Global
groups during the COVID-19 pandemic”, MedRxiv, customer engagement”, Journal of International Marketing,
doi: 10.1101/2020.03.21.20031336. Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 4-29.
Beck, L., Clark, M. and Macky, K. (2020), “Demystifying Hambrick, D. (1984), “Taxonomic approaches to studying
consumer digital cocreated value: social presence theory- strategy: some conceptual and methodological issues”,
informed framework and propositions”, Recherche et Journal of Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 27-41.
Applications en Marketing, forthcoming. Hammedi, W., Kandampully, J., Zhang, T. and Bouquiaux, L.
Beckers, S., Van Doorn, J. and Verhoef, P. (2018), “Good, (2015), “Online customer engagement: creating social
better, engaged? The effect of company-initiated customer environments through brand community constellations”,
engagement behavior on shareholder value”, Journal of the Journal of Service Management, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 777-806.
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 366-383. Harrigan, P., Evers, U., Miles, M. and Daly, T. (2018),
Békés, V. and Aafjes-Van Doorn, K. (2020), “Psychotherapists’ “Customer engagement and the relationship between
attitudes toward online therapy during the COVID-19 involvement, engagement, self-brand connection and brand
pandemic”, Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, Vol. 30 No. 2, usage intent”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 88, pp. 388-396.
pp. 238-247. Heard, S. (2020), “TVNZ is broadcasting free-to-air les Mills
Bowden, J. (2009), “The process of customer engagement: a fitness classes during the lockdown”, available at: https://
conceptual framework”, Journal of Marketing Theory and concreteplayground.com/auckland/travel-leisure/tvnz-is-
Practice, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 63-74. broadcasting-free-to-air-les-mills-fitness-classes-during-the-
Breidbach, C., Brodie, R. and Hollebeek, L. (2014), “Beyond lockdown (accessed 29 March 2020).
virtuality: from engagement platforms to engagement Heymann, D. and Shindo, N. (2020), “COVID-19: what is
ecosystems”, Managing Service Quality: An International next for public health?”, The Lancet, Vol. 395 No. 10224,
Journal, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 592-611. pp. 542-545.
 Customer brand engagement Journal of Services Marketing
Linda D. Hollebeek et al.

Higgins, E. (1997), “Beyond pleasure and pain”, American (Eds), Customer Engagement: Contemporary Issues and
Psychologist, Vol. 52 No. 12, pp. 1280-1300. Challenges, Routledge, pp. 272-286.
Higgins, E. and Scholer, A. (2009), “Engaging the consumer: Karpen, I. and Conduit, J. (2020), “Engaging in times of
the science and art of the value creation process”, Journal of COVID-19 and beyond: theorizing customer engagement
Consumer Psychology, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 100-114. through different paradigmatic lenses”, Journal of Service
Higgins, E., Friedman, R., Harlow, R., Idson, L., Ayduk, O. Management, In press, doi: 10.1108/JOSM-05-2020-0156.
and Taylor, A. (2001), “Achievement orientations from Kasabov, E. and Da Cunha, A. (2014), “Re-conceptualising
subjective histories of success: promotion pride versus call-centres as sites of control: the insider perspective”,
prevention pride”, European Journal of Social Psychology, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 48 Nos 1/2, pp. 25-46.
Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 3-23. Kasabov, E. and Warlow, A. (2010), The Compliance Business
Hollebeek, L. (2011a), “Demystifying customer brand and Its Customers: Gaining Competitive Advantage by
engagement: exploring the loyalty nexus”, Journal of Marketing Controlling Your Customers, Springer.
Management, Vol. 27 Nos 7/8, pp. 785-807. Khan, I., Fatma, M., Islam, J. and Rahman, Z. (2020), “Brand
Hollebeek, L. (2011b), “Exploring customer brand engagement: engagement and experience in online services”, Journal of
definition and themes”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 19 Services Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 163-175.
No. 7, pp. 555-573. KPMG (2020), “Impact of COVID-19 on the Nigerian
Hollebeek, L. (2013), “The customer engagement/value interface: consumer and industrial markets”, available at: https://assets.
an exploratory investigation”, Australasian Marketing Journal, kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/ng/pdf/advisory/impact-of-covid-19-
Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 17-24. on-the-nigerian-consumer-markets-sector.pdf (accessed
Hollebeek, L. (2018), “Individual-level cultural consumer 1 August 2020).
engagement styles: conceptualization, propositions, and Kumar, V., Rajan, B., Gupta, S. and Dalla Pozza, I. (2019),
implications”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 35 No. 1, “Customer engagement in service”, Journal of the Academy of
pp. 42-71. Marketing Science, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 138-160.
Hollebeek, L. and Chen, T. (2014), “Exploring positively- Lee, Y., In, J. and Lee, S. (2020), “Social media engagement,
versus negatively-valenced brand engagement: a conceptual service complexity, and experiential quality in US hospitals”,
model”, Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 23 Journal of Services Marketing, doi: 10.1108/JSM-09-2019-0359.
No. 1, pp. 62-74. Letheren, K., Russell-Bennett, R., Mulcahy, R. and
Hollebeek, L., Glynn, M. and Brodie, R. (2014), “Consumer McAndrew, R. (2019), “Rules of (household) engagement:
brand engagement in social media: conceptualization, technology as manager, assistant, and intern”, European
scale development and validation”, Journal of Interactive Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 9, pp. 1934-1961.
Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 149-165. Liberman, N., Molden, D., Idson, L. and Higgins, E. (2001),
Hollebeek, L., Juric, B. and Tang, W. (2017), “Virtual brand “Promotion and prevention focus on alternative hypotheses:
community engagement practices: a refined typology and implications for attributional functions”, Journal of
model”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 31 No. 3, Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 5-18.
pp. 204-217. Lin, Q., Zhao, S., Gaod, D., Lou, Y., Yang, S., Musa, S.,
Hollebeek, L., Srivastava, R. and Chen, T. (2019), “S-D logic- Wang, M., Caig, Y., Wang, W., Yangh, L. and Hee, D.
informed customer engagement: integrative framework, (2020), “A conceptual model for the coronavirus disease
revised fundamental propositions, and application to CRM”, 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in Wuhan, China with
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 47 No. 1, individual reaction and governmental action”, International
pp. 161-185. Journal of Infectious Diseases, Vol. 93, pp. 211-216.
Hollebeek, L., Sprott, D. and Brady, M. (2020a), “Rise of the Ma, X., Vervoort, D., Reddy, C., Park, K. and Masaka, E.
machines? Customer engagement in automated service (2020), “Emergency and essential surgical healthcare
interactions”, Journal of Service Research, Forthcoming. services during COVID-19 in low- and middle-income
Hollebeek, L., Clark, M., Andreassen, T., Sigurdsson, V. and countries: a perspective”, International Journal of Surgery,
Smith, D. (2020b), “Virtual reality through the customer Vol. 79, In press, doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.05.037.
journey: framework and propositions”, Journal of Retailing Markowitz, Y., Boer, D. and Van Dick, R. (2014), “Economic
& Consumer Services, In press, In press, Vol. 55 No. July, crisis and the employee: the effects of economic crisis on
doi: 10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102056. employee job satisfaction, commitment, and self-regulation”,
Hollebeek, L.D., Andreassen, T.W., Smith, D.L., Grönquist, D., European Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 413-422.
Karahasanovic, A. and Marquez, A. (2018), “Service Marston, H., Musselwhite, C. and Hadley, R. (2020),
innovation actor engagement: an integrative model”, Journal of “COVID-19 vs social isolation: the impact technology can
Services Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 95-100. have on communities, social connections and citizens”,
Jacoby, J. and Kaplan, L. (1972), “The components of perceived Ageing Issues, British Society of Gerontology.
risk”, in Venkatesan, V. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Third Annual Maslow, A. (1943), “A theory of human motivation”,
Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Association Psychological Review, Vol. 50 No. 4, pp. 70-396.
for Consumer Research, Chicago, IL, pp. 382-393. Maslow, A. (1954), Motivation and Personality, Harper & Row,
Juric, B., Smith, S. and Wilks, G. (2016), “Negative customer New York, NY.
brand engagement: an overview of conceptual and blog- Micu, C. and Chowdhury, T. (2010), “The effect of ageing and
based findings”, in Brodie, R., Hollebeek, L. and Conduit, J. time horizon perspective on consumers’ response to promotion
 Customer brand engagement Journal of Services Marketing
Linda D. Hollebeek et al.

versus prevention focus advertisements”, International Journal india-lockdown-italy-cases-restrictions-uk-us-outbreak-australia-

of Advertising, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 621-642. china-hubei-latesfit-updates?page=with:block-5e7af15a8f0878a
Mosteller, J. and Poddar, A. (2017), “To share and protect: 2a48a9a9f (accessed 30 March 2020).
using regulatory focus theory to examine the privacy paradox Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. (1986), “Rational choice and
of consumers’ social media engagement and online privacy the framing of decisions”, Journal of Business, Vol. 59 No. 4,
protection behaviors”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, pp. 251-278.
Vol. 39 No. 8, pp. 27-38. Vargo, S. and Lusch, R. (2016), “Institutions and axioms: an
Oertzen, A., Odekerken-Schröder, G. and Mager, B. (2020), extension and update of service-dominant logic”, Journal of
“Driving users’ behaviours and engagement in co-creating the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 5-23.
services”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 4, Verleye, K., Gemmel, P. and Rangarajan, D. (2014),
doi: 10.1108/JSM-06-2019-0244. “Managing engagement behaviors in a network of customers
Parasuraman, A. (2000), “Technology readiness index (TRI): and stakeholders: evidence from the nursing home sector”,
a multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new Journal of Service Research, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 68-84.
technologies”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 2 No. 4, Vilnai-Yavetz, I. and Levina, O. (2018), “Motivating social
pp. 307-320. sharing of e-business content: intrinsic motivation, extrinsic
Porpiglia, F., Checcucci, E., Autorino, R., Amparore, D., motivation, or crowding-out effect?”, Computers in Human
Cooperberg, M., Ficarra, V. and Novara, G. (2020), Behavior, Vol. 79 No. 2, pp. 181-191.
“Traditional and virtual congress meetings during the Viswanathan, V., Hollebeek, L., Malthouse, E., Maslowska, E.,
COVID-19 pandemic and the post-COVID-19 era: is it time Kim, S.J. and Xie, W. (2017), “The dynamics of consumer
to change the paradigm?”, European Urology, Vol. 78 No. 3, engagement with mobile technologies”, Service Science, Vol. 9
In press, doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2020.04.018. No. 1, pp. 36-49.
Ramaswamy, V. and Ozcan, K. (2016), “Brand value co- Vivek, S., Beatty, S. and Morgan, R. (2012), “Customer
creation in a digitalized world: an integrative framework and engagement: exploring customer relationships beyond
research implications”, International Journal of Research in purchase”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 20
Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 93-106. No. 2, pp. 127-145.
Rogers, E. (1962), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, Vivek, S., Beatty, S., Dalela, V. and Morgan, R. (2014), “A
New York, NY. generalized multidimensional scale for measuring customer
Roggeveen, A. and Sethuraman, R. (2020), “How the COVID-19 engagement”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice,
pandemic may change the world of retailing”, Journal of Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 401-420.
Retailing, Vol. 96 No. 2, pp. 169-171. Ward, M., Chandler, J., Pels, J. and Hollebeek, L. (2019),
Rosenbaum, M. and Massiah, C. (2007), “When customers “Resource integration in resource-poor environments”,
receive support from other customers: exploring the Working paper.
influence of intercustomer social support on customer Werth, L. and Foerster, J. (2007), “How regulatory focus
voluntary performance”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 9 influences consumer behavior”, European Journal of Social
No. 3, pp. 257-270. Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 33-51.
Russell-Bennett, R., Fisk, R., Rosenbaum, M. and Zainuddin, N. WHO (2020), “Clinical management of severe acute respiratory
(2019), “Transformative service research and social marketing: infection (SARI) when COVID-19 disease is suspected:
converging pathways to social change”, Journal of Services interim guidance”, World Health Organization, available
Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 633-642. at: www.who.int/publications-detail/clinical-management-of-
Solem, B. and Pedersen, P. (2016), “The effects of regulatory severe-acute-respiratory-infection-when-novel-coronavirus-
fit on customer brand engagement: an experimental study of (ncov)-infection-is-suspected (accessed 7 March 2020).
service brand activities in social media”, Journal of Marketing Wilder-Smith, A. and Freedman, D. (2020), “Isolation,
Management, Vol. 32 Nos 5/6, pp. 445-468. quarantine, social distancing and community containment:
Sprott, D., Czellar, S. and Spangenberg, E. (2009), “The pivotal role for old-style public health measures in the novel
importance of a general measure of brand engagement on coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak”, Journal of Travel
market behavior: development and validation of a scale”, Medicine, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 1-4.
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 92-104. Yuan, D., Lin, Z., Fillieri, R., Liu, R. and Zheng, M. (2020),
Stam, K. and Stanton, J. (2010), “Events, emotions, and “Managing the product-harm crisis in the digital era: the role
technology: examining acceptance of workplace technology of consumer online brand community engagement”, Journal
changes”, Information Technology & People, Vol. 23 No. 1, of Business Research, Vol. 115, In press, doi: 10.1016/j.
pp. 23-53. jbusres.2020.04.044.
Sullivan, H., Rawlinson, K., Topping, A. and Gayle, D.
(2020), “Spain overtakes China as second worst-hit country Corresponding author
by Covid-19, as it happened”, available at: www.theguardian. Linda D. Hollebeek can be contacted at: l.hollebeek@
com/australia-news/live/2020/mar/25/coronavirus-live-news- montpellier-bs.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com